WAR - another newsletter - more RvR, less sport PvP

[eldaec]

The point of variety is to encourage people to find new combinations that work in different ways, giving variety to the playing experience in pvp. Yes people flock to the successful templates, but that doesn't stop people finding new ones, so long as games have sufficient character options.

DAoC had plenty of this over it's time. Johny talks aboiut this above. And by the time the masses had characters configured for one tactic, the game had moved on and pbaoe or nearsight/dot, or whatever was the tactic du jour.

Just taking pets as an example, the difference between fighting tradtional cabalist pets, fire-and-forget-swarm theurg pets, or animist turrets is pretty significant.

CoH probably achieves this more than anyone, with most of the variety in gameplay coming from different balances of powersets in your group.


Perhaps EVE is an even better example, it has far more variation in ship design than daoc or coh or war or whatever, but there is no required role issue, and no obvious problem with archetypes being ignored.

[eldaec]

And how many players did they end up appealing to in that end?

If we're talking about another generic fantasy title for gamers, I completely agree with you. But if you're trying to hit it big by grabbing a big (Relatively-speaking) IP with a big budget for lots of players, having a confusing array of classes at launch is bad enough. Then expecting them to stick around for four years, numerous expansions and team changes, and for the sole purpose of an endgame that hasn't yet proven to have the mass appeal you were trying to hit with that big IP and budget, is, well, optomistic.

I'm not convinced that a dozen or even two dozen classes is all that confusing (you only play one at a time), and anyway, even in WoW most people play a few classes before they really focus on one for the grind, rather than pick one based on the manual. Certainly it's no more confusing than CoH's archetype/power-set system, since Mythic have identified the 4 archetypes up front (tank, rogue, mage, cleric).

Plus, if mythic are to be believed, it's not just an endgame, they do appear to have much more pvp/rvr all the way through the levels.

[Venkman]

We have different definitions of "masses" and "most" I think. Most people don't grind. Most people don't have multiple level cap alts they pull out when needed per adventure, D&D-style. Heck, most people didn't even play D&D

I agree with you on both CoX and Eve, good models to go by. One is archetypes/subs which really only requires at-launch respeccing to be solid. The other is UO-esque build-through-skills without the XP grind. Both pretty well compel experimentation, though imho CoX pulls it off mostly by showing you what your class will be like within the first 1/3 of levels.

The reason I like WoW's system too though is that it's both easier to grasp (levels-based, XP, specific roles) and provides some good customization beyond just level 1. The first third of the game teaches you the base class. The latter part lets you find out which sub-class you want. And it launched with respec'ing so you can dabble.

The challenge I have is when all this is factored against an endgame. I long for a day when a PvP game comes out that lets you gain XP from PvP (maybe WAR does?). If someone could PvP all the time, in a game about PvP, then more dabbling, chasing FoTM, the constant ebb and flow of usable abilities, all of that adds the meta to the deathmatch or CTF or whatever form the PvP takes. But right now it's mostly grind2crush, which adds that unfortunate dimensions of wanting more choice without confusing people.

[eldaec]

The challenge I have is when all this is factored against an endgame. I long for a day when a PvP game comes out that lets you gain XP from PvP (maybe WAR does?). If someone could PvP all the time, in a game about PvP, then more dabbling, chasing FoTM, the constant ebb and flow of usable abilities, all of that adds the meta to the deathmatch or CTF or whatever form the PvP takes. But right now it's mostly grind2crush, which adds that unfortunate dimensions of wanting more choice without confusing people.

GW, EVE etc already have this, but you need to be hardcore to compete.

DAoC I suppose still techincally has the same, but with enormous social barriers.

WAR claim to have fixed the rvr from day 1 thing, at a cost of enemies prancing about your pve zone, and out-of-character magic lines which tell you where to fight. We'll see I guess.

I'm unconvinced that any of these games are more confusing or inaccessible than, say, CS. Where you absolutely have to know the map backwards and social-grind your way into a team or you never understand how that guy just got behind you and shot you.

Confusion over class choice will never contribute to inaccessibility so much as the fact that everyone else knows how to play. Unless you make it all luck based, and then you lose for other reasons.



Regarding the definition of masses thing. Most people who play WoW have more than one low level alt for try out purposes before figuriong out what role they want to play. Most people who play one character to max level are willing to try to find a respec to try a new tactic, and are certainly willing to change the skills selected for their hotbar, which is most often all people need to do to change their position in the meta game of something like DAoC, GW, or whatever. And they might not have played D&D (which anyway would be irrelevant since the classes mean something totally different there), but WoW players are sure as hell capable of understanding the 4 EQ derived archetypes.

[IainC]

The challenge I have is when all this is factored against an endgame. I long for a day when a PvP game comes out that lets you gain XP from PvP (maybe WAR does?). If someone could PvP all the time, in a game about PvP, then more dabbling, chasing FoTM, the constant ebb and flow of usable abilities, all of that adds the meta to the deathmatch or CTF or whatever form the PvP takes. But right now it's mostly grind2crush, which adds that unfortunate dimensions of wanting more choice without confusing people.

WAR does, DAoC did (although to be fair the low level PvP options were often theoretical rather than actual).

Role confusion in WAR shouldn't be an issue, as Eldaec says there are four basic archetypes - Ranged DPS, Melee DPS, Tank and Support which are common to each race. Although they are implemented differently for each iteration the roles are well defined.

[Triforcer]

WAR claim to have fixed the rvr from day 1 thing, at a cost of enemies prancing about your pve zone, and out-of-character magic lines which tell you where to fight. We'll see I guess.

Er, I'm reading quotes from Mark Jacobs in November that say there will be three rule sets:  Core (Everyone flagged in RvR zones, in an enemy PvE zone, the natives must attack first), RP (uses Core) and Open RvR (kill anyone of the opposing faction except "true newbs").

Has this been changed?  I have zero interest in the game if there isn't the third server type.

[eldaec]

I might be wrong - but I didn't think they'd decided for certain what they were going to do with alternate rulesets.

[Venkman]

Good clarifications on WAR. How much does level itself matter in combat. Is that removed altogether or do they bracket RvR into level-range maps ala WoW BGs?

@eldaec: I agree that the four basic archetypes are easily understood and communicated. However, when those four archetypes are split across a dozen classes, where one "leans more" one way or the other, it can be easy to make a choice you'll hate later (if the class is gimped and ignored by devs who have other priorities).

I'm thinking mostly along the lines of practicality here, not really theory. It's not so much a confusion thing as much as an expectations one. "Confusion" is often used to deride skills-based games/thinking. I choose "expectations" because when a class makes you expect something and then doesn't deliver it, that can be worse.

[Triforcer]

I might be wrong - but I didn't think they'd decided for certain what they were going to do with alternate rulesets.

http://www.warhammeralliance.com/articles/showentry.php?e=32

That seems pretty definite. 

[Rondaror]

Good clarifications on WAR. How much does level itself matter in combat. Is that removed altogether or do they bracket RvR into level-range maps ala WoW BGs?

My first post here on f13, apologies for bad english, as it is not my native language....

It's similar to WoW BG's or DAoC BG's, means that you do RvR within your level range. However the difference to WoW or DAoC  is that winning does contribute to your factions success, not only for your personal success.

[waylander]

I might be wrong - but I didn't think they'd decided for certain what they were going to do with alternate rulesets.

http://www.warhammeralliance.com/articles/showentry.php?e=32

That seems pretty definite. 

Open RvR for me all the way.


I like the idea of having less classes to deal with. It allows someone to play a class, but have more options available to them.  In the past the games that had a ton of classes had issues with people not being able to solo effectively, or getting gimped without "x" class.  So the fewer classes there are, the less likely that is to happen and people can get some PVP groups going without waiting all day on a certain class.

[Venkman]

Wasn't the Keep sigils in DAoC also based providing a faction-wide buff? That was what I remembered from the early days, but I burned out from the content-incomplete grind before I even hit 30.

[Johny Cee]

And how many players did they end up appealing to in that end?

If we're talking about another generic fantasy title for gamers, I completely agree with you. But if you're trying to hit it big by grabbing a big (Relatively-speaking) IP with a big budget for lots of players, having a confusing array of classes at launch is bad enough. Then expecting them to stick around for four years, numerous expansions and team changes, and for the sole purpose of an endgame that hasn't yet proven to have the mass appeal you were trying to hit with that big IP and budget, is, well, optomistic.

I'm a huge fan of experimentation. But more-classes is not the way I'd personally go. I'd rather start with a core and expand outward than start outward and hope to fill it.

Just me though. Sorry for belaboring the point.

I'm just going to point out you changed from a system/design argument to a popularity argument before I concede the point because you're dead on.  Complexity hinders mass-market success.

One thing I think Mythic learned was you have to give everyone the archetypal role, and make all classes decent at it.  No more half-assing a hybrid class that really doesn't do anything well,  so gets min/maxed out of actually playing the game.  Save the utility for the secondary or tertiary specs/sub-classes/whatever.

[Simond]

Did we know this already?

Q: Will the game require a monthly fee to play WAR?

A: Yes, and EA Mythic's President Mark Jacobs has stated that the subscription fee will quite possibly be more than the standard $14.99 that most MMOG's charge.

 

[Merusk]

Did we know this already?

Q: Will the game require a monthly fee to play WAR?

A: Yes, and EA Mythic's President Mark Jacobs has stated that the subscription fee will quite possibly be more than the standard $14.99 that most MMOG's charge.

 

Not surprising.  $14.99 has been the standard for what, nearly 5 years now? With the inflation and all that other wonderful economic stuff it's probably time for an across the board price hike, it's just a question of who'll do it first and how much.

I still hold my "once they hit $20 I'm done with this hobby" stance.  At that point it'll be cheaper to buy a new console game for the wife and I to share every month. The lower cost vs traditional gaming was a good portion of why we started MMOing in the first place.

[Triforcer]

http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/community/grabBag/grabBag_august2007.php

Interesting tidbit:

Q) I have read that you are going to avoid instances where possible (except for the big boss battles in PVE) but I was wondering if the "dungeons" are going to be instanced?

A) There is minimal instancing in dungeons. Dungeon instancing is generally restricted to final boss encounters.

Maybe that's been changed, of course, but has far-reaching implications on an open RvR server.  I'm amaze that WAR is getting so much mainstream love for how PvP-hardcore its shaping up to be.  People were shitting themselves over SB and Vanguard when they did stuff like this.  

[tazelbain]

I could bite on 20/mo if they laided down a no paid expansions rule.
But i'd rather have a microtransaction server if they are looking to up their revenue.

Tri: I don't think that precludes faction-restricted, non-instatized, PvE-only dungeons.

[eldaec]

Tri: I don't think that precludes faction-restricted, non-instatized, PvE-only dungeons.

AFAIK WAR has no faction restricted areas bar the capital city.

Personally I'm not a fan of decision, because it will look silly on the core ruleset servers.

[Simond]

$20/m with no PvE instancing and reskinned DAoC for PvP?
How can this possibly fail!

[tmp]

Not surprising.  $14.99 has been the standard for what, nearly 5 years now? With the inflation and all that other wonderful economic stuff it's probably time for an across the board price hike, it's just a question of who'll do it first and how much.

The competition is larger than 5 years ago too. One could argue if it wasn't for the inflation and the other wonderful stuff, the prices should've gone down if just to keep people playing one's game rather than the competitor's.

[Merusk]

Valid point, but I expect the competition is what's kept them from increasing before now.  It'll take one game saying they're going to do it, doing it and then being successful at it, and then the rest will follow suit.

I don't think they'll raise above $20 at any time in the next decade, however. As you say, the competition is getting worse and more and more microtrans/ free games are showing up at the same quality level as your traditional MMO; and with more content updates than most.  (Dofus, for example, has had 2-3 I remember getting e-mails for in just the last year.)  It's not just "a post WoW world" of polish and content the big houses have to compete against, it's the smaller ones that are producing the same polish with only a little less depth.

[Dren]

I don't mind CC being in these games, but it really needs to be restricted.  I can think of a few rules:

1.  Do not allow constant chains of CC to happen.  A character should always be allowed windows of opportunity to escape, heal, interupt, etc.  This could be in seconds, but there has to be something.

2.  CC's should not be of the type that stop action from a player, but still allows damage.  A CC should wipe all damage conditions and prevent any further damage from occuring or the CC will break.  Stuns in WoW are just impossible to balance when you have multiple CC character types keeping somebody completely stunned and damaged at the same time.  Sheeping is a good example of CC done right.  Take a person out of combat, but only that.  Any damage done will bring them right back in.  The only time I'd want to see a type of CC in addition to damage is just some type of debuff.  You take their ability away to fight back very well, but they can continue to be damaged.  A good example would be a dimmed screen, running like your drunk in WoW, % chance to hit decreased, armor decreased, etc.  Slowing movement and/or combat is another good example of this.  Utter and complete immobility just plain sucks and is no fun.

3.  If collision detection will be used, it is a great way of providing an indirect CC.  However, you must also add some risk to this strategy.  Meaning any range DPS that is used in the general area of a blockade must also have a chance to hit their own group.  You can't block the opposite side from moving through you while you let damaging elements pass through you to them without any consequences.  This promotes staging archer and magic fire before bringing the front lines up and in harm's way.

4.  Interupts need to be available to all.  My preference is to provide them to be used at precisely the right moment.  This would add some twitchiness to the game, but it at least gives somebody a chance at avoiding being taken out of combat for umpteen seconds.  Feeling powerless in an MMO is death IMHO.  It would also take away that "opener" CC that typically happens.  Keep your opponent guessing when that CC will come rather than the old "Press 1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then 3, then 4, etc."

5.  Absolutely no CC classes.  DO NOT create a class that specializes in CC.  A huge mistake is allowing there to be a character that is so confident in their ability to CC that it is a foregone conclusion that their presence will seal a win.  Plus, on the other side, if they cannot rely on their CC ability due to interupts, they won't have any other abilities to back them up due to balancing needs.  All classes should have the ability to do a CC, break a CC, DPS, and heal, but that's just my opinion.  Some may be better at some of these than others, but nobody should be a clear answer to one of them.

[waylander]

CC in DAOC was pretty overboard, but I think Mythic heard that loud and clear when they started thinking about WAR classes/skills.

I don't think WAR is reskinned DAOC PVP.  I do think there are some good things that DAOC did with RvR/Keep battles that can be brought forward, and then improved on so that we have a better end game.

I don't know how many of you watched that last video update of the Keep/RvR system, but to me it looks like all 4 zones will need to be in play to have an impact on the world. If so, that means PL'ing to 40 (or so) and fighting in the highest zone won't be the full end game.

If WAR does have PVE, it needs to be done in a way where it supports the overall goal of the Destruction or Empire faction.  Just having mindless PVE in there for the hell of it wouldn't be a good thing IMHO.

[Venkman]

Valid point, but I expect the competition is what's kept them from increasing before now.  It'll take one game saying they're going to do it, doing it and then being successful at it, and then the rest will follow suit.

I don't think they'll raise above $20 at any time in the next decade, however. As you say, the competition is getting worse and more and more microtrans/ free games are showing up at the same quality level as your traditional MMO; and with more content updates than most.  (Dofus, for example, has had 2-3 I remember getting e-mails for in just the last year.)  It's not just "a post WoW world" of polish and content the big houses have to compete against, it's the smaller ones that are producing the same polish with only a little less depth.

That's exactly it. I see the dropping of the monthly fee altogether before I see a genre-wide increase to $19.99 average. I personally don't go for microtrans games because I haven't seen one yet that's anymore than paying off a casino to let you win more often at their slot machine. Heck, I'd take ingame advertising over that anyday. But there's just too much business interest behind this to not have it evolve that way, even if it means getting rid of stuffy old-timers like me.

[tazelbain]

Anyway, I am oppisite I hate ads.  If your game has ads it better be completely gratis like SB.

[Xanthippe]

Anyway, I am oppisite I hate ads.  If your game has ads it better be completely gratis like SB.

Or have a way to avoid them completely by paying for the privilege.

[Venkman]

Oh yea, definitely file my opinion under "lesser of two evils". I'll gladly accept ads in something like The Agency (or TF2 or CoD4) or future sci-fi stuff (TR, AO) as it makes sense in the context of the virtual world. Keep you your ads out of my fantasy though.

[AngryGumball]

ok ok ok, I really need to start playing this game damnit. :)

Its starting to break me, not knowing if I'll like it or hate it.

I already know I'll buy it day one and play it.

Hate reading the newsletters. Not one for dredging websites for info about the game. I just gotta get in and see if it feels like its something I want. Also to see if the community is something I can hang with and waste hours upon hours away in.

Not looking forward to if the discussion about pricing will be more is correct.

[Modern Angel]

Tangential and maybe possibly indicative of stirrings in GW: The Warhammer and 40K RPGs are no more. Sudden announcement, literally days after the first 40K book came out and totally sold out. Black Industries is going back to making the 40K novels.

[IainC]

Tangential and maybe possibly indicative of stirrings in GW: The Warhammer and 40K RPGs are no more. Sudden announcement, literally days after the first 40K book came out and totally sold out. Black Industries is going back to making the 40K novels.

Black Industries has nothing to do with the 40K novels. Black Library is the publishing imprint of GW and they've been ramping up the output for a few years now. Black Industries is just a victim of the cost-cutter's hatchet and nothing more as they were a wholly owned subsidiary of GW.

[Modern Angel]

Then I got my Black X names confused. Still, here's the press release:


28/January/2008 - Black Industries Announcement
Black Industries regret to announce that Dark Heresy: Disciples of the Dark Gods out in September will be the final product to be released from Black Industries.

Kevin Rountree General Manager of BL Publishing said ‘As a result of the continued and impressive success of our core novels business, which we have built around 40K and Warhammer, we have decided to focus all of our efforts on growing this part of our business. Black Industries has seen fantastic success, most recently with Talisman and Dark Heresy. This change does not take away from that achievement rather it allows BL Publishing to focus on producing the best novels we can. This is a purely commercial decision and will enable us to carry on the huge growth that we have recently been experiencing with our novels’

For the time being Black Industries will continue to post articles in support of the products on their official website, which is a fantastic resource for scenarios and gaming tools for GM’s and players alike.



Now, the cynic in me could (COULD) say that GW has an abysmal track record of supporting anything beyond their core two miniatures games and how a game which sold 20K in days isn't even enough.

[Nija]

$20/mo for this piece of shit? It better come with a self cleaning fleshlight, or better yet a subscription for a topless fleshlight-maid service.

[Righ]

Oh yea, definitely file my opinion under "lesser of two evils". I'll gladly accept ads in something like The Agency (or TF2 or CoD4) or future sci-fi stuff (TR, AO) as it makes sense in the context of the virtual world. Keep you your ads out of my fantasy though.

Is that related to immersion? Would you be okay with a fantasy/archaic setting having ads if they were thematically appropriate - for instance having a town barker calling them?

[Ratman_tf]

So how come prices keep going up, but I don't get no raises? Does "Inflation" mean "Ratman gonna be a fuckin hobo in a couple years"?

[Dash]

I cant imagine they'd price it at 20/month.  I could see 16.99 or 17.99 maybe.  But not 20.  Of course I'm just guessing here, I doubt they even know yet.  I remember Mark Jacobs talking about how Bliz set the spending and quality bar really high and pointing out the price per month has been static for a long time now.  It's bound to go up eventually just like anything else.  I doubt they want to be the first to do it but who knows what the financial realities are.